Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding

By Silvio Vismara. Small Business Economics, 2016

681 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Management Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3bd59d760852446ac75230aec20fd158ee74875a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Financial Wealth, Socioemotional Wealth, and IPO Underpricing in Family Firms: A Two-stage Gamble Model (2017, background): “The degree of ownership retention captures the extent to which family owners will enjoy continued control and influence after the IPO (Barry, 1989; Ljungqvist&Wilhelm, 2003; Vismara, 2016).”
The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market (2018, positive): “There is a rapidly burgeoning literature about ECG, focused on social networks (Vismara 2016); pricing and regulation (Hornuf and Schwienbacher 2016; Hornuf and Neuenkirch 2017) and distance effects (Guenther et al. 2017; Mohammadi and Shafi 2017).”
Equity crowdfunding in Germany and the United Kingdom: Follow-up funding and firm failure (2018, neutral): “Until now, most research has focused on the success factors of ECF campaigns (Ahlers, Cumming, Guenther, & Schweizer, 2015; Hornuf & Schwienbacher, 2018a, 2018b; Ralcheva & Roosenboom, 2016; Vismara, 2017; Vulkan, Åstebro, & Sierra, 2016) and the determinants of crowd engagement (Agrawal, Catalini, ”
Equity crowdfunding: First resort or last resort? (2017, methodology): “…crowdfunding has emerged as a new source of external equity finance that plays an increasingly important role in the financing of young entrepreneurial firms (e.g., Ahlers et al., 2015; Bruton et al., 2015; Cumming and Vismara, 2017; Drover et al., 2017; Short et al., 2017; Vismara, 2016, 2018).”
The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance (2018, positive): “Research examining entrepreneurial fundraising efforts, including crowdfunding, has frequently drawn from signaling theory as a means to understand investment transactions between investors and entrepreneurs (e.g., Ahlers et al., 2015; Vismara, 2016).”
Equity crowdfunding, shareholder structures, and firm performance (2018, neutral): “We focus on Crowdcube and Seedrs, two mature generalist equity crowdfunding platforms (Vismara, 2016).”
Determinants of individual investment decisions in investment-based crowdfunding (2018, neutral): “This number is slightly higher than the 330 connections reported by Vismara (2016) for his sample on the U.K.-based platform Crowdcube.”
Investors’ choices between cash and voting rights: Evidence from dual-class equity crowdfunding (2019, positive): “The direct involvement of a large number of small investors makes Crowdcube particularly suitable for studies in corporate finance (e.g., Cumming et al., 2016; Vismara 2016; 2018; Vulkan et al., 2016).”
Dynamics of Lending-Based Prosocial Crowdfunding: Using a Social Responsibility Lens (2018, background): “Mollick and Robb (2016) further call crowdfunding the democratization of innovation and financing, which with the advent of the Internet offers increasingly “speeding and scaling opportunities for early-stage financing” (Vismara 2016, p. 580).”
Market mechanisms and funding dynamics in equity crowdfunding (2017, neutral): “To motivate the crowd to participate in the future profits of the firm, fundraisers in some jurisdictions offer equity shares in a private limited liability company (LLC), as is the case on portals such as Crowdcube or Seedrs (Vismara, 2016) in the United Kingdom.”
Crowdfunding and social capital: A systematic review using a dynamic perspective (2021, neutral): “…period (especially for serial crowdfunding campaigns): too much funding from external networks discourages fundraisers from running a repeated crowdfunding campaign (Davidson and Poor, 2015, 2016), and their private networks become less supportive in subsequent campaigns (Skirnevskiy et al., 2017).”
What do crowdfunding platforms do? A comparison between investment-based platforms in Europe (2017, positive): “While many papers have addressed the determinants of campaign success (e.g., Ahlers et al. 2015; Vismara 2016; Hornuf and Neuenkirch 2017), much less attention has been devoted to platform activities.”
Reward-based crowdfunding of entrepreneurial projects: the effect of local altruism and localized social capital on proponents’ success (2017, neutral): “Furthermore, we draw on studies of the importance of social capital in crowdfunding (Mollick 2014; Colombo et al. 2015a; Vismara 2016a; Vismara 2016b) to argue that the structure and nature of social relations in an area, i.e., localized social capital (Laursen et al. 2012a), moderate the allegedly…”
Is the crowd sensitive to distance?—how investment decisions differ by investor type (2017, positive): “Moreover, Hong et al. (2004) show that investment decisions are related to social interactions, which are linked naturally to investor communities (see also Vismara 2016a, 2016b and Alexy et al. 2012, for a discussion on the effect of information cascades).”